"pure" survivable, or "mixed" mandatory?

[Particle_Man]

I don't wish to put a value term on either, but couldn't think of better words right now.

For the purpose of discussion: "Pure" means you don't take any multi-class feats or weapon proficiency feats, nor any skill training feats for skills outside of your class list, nor armor proficiency feats (although you can take armor specialization feats for armor that your class already allows).

"Mixed" would relax all of those restrictions.

Now it seems likely that a "mixed" character will be more optimal than a "pure" character, simply by virtue of having more options.

I am curious as to whether the difference is pronounced enough to affect play. Could one, for instance, play a "pure" Avenger without being a drag on the party, or does one need to get leather armor proficiency and/or fullblade proficiency and/or a multi-class feat and/or skill training in Insight, etc.? Are some classes more greatly weakened if played "pure" than others?

 

[Crothian]

We have players that optimize like this in the same party with players who don't. It so far has not been an issue.

 

[fanboy2000]

Near as I can tell, the Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Paladin can all be done pure. I suspect all the other classes are the same.

 

[Umbran]

Now it seems likely that a "mixed" character will be more optimal than a "pure" character, simply by virtue of having more options.

it may be that a "mixed" character *can* be more highly optimized. But that does not mean they will be.

4e has made it clear that there are two forms of "optimal". One is "optimized when you don't consider other characters" and the other is "optimized for work with the party". The latter form depends upon the party, and how they choose to work together - having more options does not help if those options don't increase your effectiveness in the party context.

So, one form of optimization is situation dependent, and we cannot sit here and say which one will yield better results, as we don't have enough information.

 

[Runestar]

To me, classes are a metagame concept, you should not be thinking of what class you are (and thus being needlessly constrained by it), but more of what role you want to fill.

I don't need to play a fighter to "fight" well, nor is there stopping me from playing a ranger and calling him a fighter who just so happened to specialize in archery.

So I don't quite see the fuss over having to go "pure" in a class, nor do I see the shame in dipping outside of my core class. Seems like some 3e mentalities (like the whole aversion towards multiclassing) die hard.

Thus, I doubt you should be too concerned about having to "go against type" and be worried that taking a feat deemed "unsuitable" for your class flavourwise is going to make you seem like a powergamer.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Multiclassing/hybrid is certainly not optimal in most cases, all classes can be run entirely pure and be optimised, easy. There is no equivalent to the 3E sorcerer and PrCs that is for sure!
IMO only one PHB class needs to go non -pure... the Wizard, you'd be mad not to take leather proficiency! Other than that I reckon the Optimising demons at WotC boards do just as good with PURE as mixed.

 

[NMcCoy]

Close-attack-oriented sorcerers really like having leather proficiency, too, as I've found out in play trying to go without it. The +2 really helps when you don't have a primary stat to AC.

On the other hand, staff wizards that focus on defense can rival a Paladin for AC with the right feats and powers. It's awfully fun playing a Wizard that wades boldly into combat, hurling foes all over the place with Thunderwave.

 

[blargney the second]

As far as I'm concerned, mixed is vastly more powerful most of the time:
- If you're hitting things about the head with a stick and want to be better at it, it's kind of silly not to grab a superior weapon except in a few specific cases.
- If your class only gives cloth proficiency and you want better AC, it's kind of silly not to grab leather armor at some point in your career...

 

[roguerouge]

My general feeling is that if you don't optimize your character, my character might die... and vice versa. If i don't make the best character I can, I might let your character down when s/he's in trouble. And I don't want to feel that guilt, especially at low levels where one death may be the end of that character.

Now, I don't define optimization as one trick pony, so bear that in mind. Optimization does include flexibility and ability to respond to many different threats. It also includes party needs.

But if the wizard's taking Skill Focus: Profession, or whatever the 4e equivalent is, then I feel like you're not really taking my time commitment seriously. Optimize your fluff at the table and in your character journals. Nobody cares about how fluffy your feats are.

 

[gizmo33]

Now it seems likely that a "mixed" character will be more optimal than a "pure" character, simply by virtue of having more options.

This may be true for a particular game system/set of rules but there's no logical basis for saying this is true in general. It could be a matter of choosing between being really bad at 10 different things or being really good at 1 thing. Especially in a party of 4-5 other PCs, being good at 1 thing might make a lot more sense.